The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Meeting on 21 March 2002,

Adopts the following:

Decision on
admissibility

1.The author, Concepción Sánchez González, a Spanish national, claims
to be a victim of violations by Spain of articles 14 and 26 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.She
is represented by counsel.

2.1The author worked in an infant school in the municipality of Los Alcázares
as an aide, although both she and her colleague Teresa Barranco Campillo discharged
the functions of infant schoolteacher.Both
filed a complaint against the municipality of Los Alcázares in which they
claimed that they should be paid at the rate for staff in the infant schoolteacher
category rather than the aide category, in which they were classified.

2.2On 31 July 1995 the Murcia Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint,
finding that the author and her colleague were in the aide category
and did not carry out higher‑level functions.Both appealed against the decision before the Social Division of
the Murcia High Court, which on 3 December 1997 handed down a judgement
in favour of Teresa Barranco Campillo only, on the basis of the
fact that she held a qualification as a primary schoolteacher, with
a specialization in humanities, even though both she and the author discharged
identical functions.

2.3The author submitted an appeal for annulment to the Social Division
of the High Court, which on 9 July 1998 dismissed the appeal.The author subsequently submitted an appeal
for amparo, which was found inadmissible on 3 June 1999.

The complaint

3.1The author regards the fact that, in the amparo proceedings
before the Constitutional Court, she was denied the opportunity to appear
without being represented by a procurador,[1]
to be contrary to article 14, paragraph 1, and article 26 of the Covenant,
since article 81, paragraph 1, of the Constitutional Court Organization Act
allows a lawyer to appear without a procurador, whereas those who are
not lawyers must be so represented.

3.2The author alleges violation of article 26 of the Covenant since she
and her colleague, although discharging identical functions in identical posts,
have been treated differently by the courts on the basis of a university degree
which is not relevant to the matter.

Issues and proceedings
before the Committee

4.1Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human
Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure,
decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the
Covenant.

4.2The Committee has ascertained that, as provided for in article 5,
paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the same matter is not
being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

4.3The author claims that there was a violation of article 14, paragraph
1, and article 26 of the Covenant on the ground that she was denied the opportunity
to appear before the Constitutional Court without being represented by a procurador.The author claims that it is discrimination
not to require persons with a law degree to be represented before the

Constitutional
Court by a procurador when persons without a law degree are required
to be so represented.With reference to its earlier case law,[2]
the Committee recalls that, as the Constitutional Court itself has argued,
the requirement for representation by a procurador reflects the need
for a person with legal training to assume responsibility for proceedings
in connection with appeals to that court.With regard to the author’s claims that such a requirement is not based
on objective and reasonable criteria, the Committee does not consider the
allegations to have been satisfactorily substantiated for the purposes of
admissibility.Accordingly this aspect
of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional
Protocol.

4.4Both the author and her colleague were employed as aides until the
latter was promoted to infant schoolteacher as she held a qualification as
a primary schoolteacher.With regard
to the author’s claims regarding violation of article 26 in that she
and her colleague were treated differently because her colleague held a university
degree while the author did not, the Committee points out that distinction
does not necessarily imply discrimination, provided that it is based on objective
and reasonable criteria.The Committee
considers that the author’s complaint regarding the violation of article 26
has not been satisfactorily substantiated for the purposes of admissibility;
accordingly this aspect of the communication is also inadmissible under article 2
of the Optional Protocol.

5.The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:

(a)That the communication is inadmissible
under article 2 of the Optional Protocol;

(b)That this decision shall be communicated
to the State party and to the author.

Notes

[1]A procurador is a person
qualified in law and a member of the Bar Association whose function it is
to represent [clients] in most judicial proceedings, see to the settlement
of lawsuit costs and take an active part in all official decisions and proceedings.